Chris Paine directed the 2006 film Who killed the Electric Car? about the controversy behind the discontinuation of electric cars. The film talks about the problem of US transportation’s dependency on foreign oil and the issue of new technology development and support in the automobile industry. The movie presented only a few of the matrices of problems the country’s dependency on oil causes. The technology for electric cars has existed for over 100 years but oil engines with internal combustion provided greater speed and so the electric car lost the consumer battle. The oil engine produces carbon dioxide emissions which causes global warming. The other problem with the oil engine is that the emissions create smog and pollute the air causing health problems in humans such as asthma, cancer, and development issues and lesions in the lungs. It was not directly mentioned but the use of oil engines and the dependency has also led to the problem of war and bloodshed for oil control.
The movie gives a brief history of automobiles and the development of electric cars along with some technological education on how electric cars work. It then gets a little more complicated by looking at the legal, technological, economical and controversial story of the electric car. Looking at all the different stakeholders involved in the issue gave the movie great educational value in the complexity of sustainability issues. It shows the viewer that sustainability problems are not simple and cannot be fixed with one new law or technology. It was disappointing however, that most of the movie was based on specific information about California drivers and General Motors’ cars and not various states and companies across the country and automobile industry. The film’s audience of current and future automobile drivers in the US may not be able to relate to the film as well as if there had been more examples in other states. With only California as an example, viewers may not see themselves as contributors to air pollution and global warming the way Californians are, creating a gap in the viewer’s ability to relate to the film. This makes it really difficult for viewers to be convinced of a need for change and then picture the change implemented in their own state.
The film did do a great job showing all sides of the electric car battle in California. The simple issues of an electric car were how to market it generate mass consumption of it. The need was “saving America” but the problem was how far the car can take you. Where can it be charged? The state of California attempted to support a more earth friendly car by creating a zero emissions law and building charging stations across the state. Instead, the attempts initiated resistance from the tax payers, automobile companies and oil industry. Tax payers protested the car because charging stations were being built with their taxes dollars whether or not they drove an electric car. The oil industry began fighting the support of the car because the car posed a threat to taking away a majority of the demand for its products.
The most striking part of the movie was why the car company, GM, turned on its own product. They stopped producing the car and collected all the cars in use and destroyed them. The initial reasoning was because there was no demand but there were waiting lists. People offered to buy all the cars off GM for full price and the company refused the offer. Advertisements were made not promoting the car and the use of it but instead making the car look complicated and not needed. The technology existed to make the cars last longer with better batteries but GM bought control of the batteries and instead of using them in their cars they sold the batteries to an oil company. They said they canceled the electric car because they were going to make a car with a better technology called hydrogen fuel cells but that technology actually used 3 to 4 times more electricity than electric cars. After the electric cars were taken off the road, the Californian government repealed the clear air law.
After seeing how the government, oil industry and car companies overpowered the consumers in this film, you are left feeling completely helpless in fighting for sustainable changes. The one hope the film leaves you with is foreign car companies. Toyota created the hybrid Prius that has become a profitable model for the company in the US. Foreign car companies are not affected by the US government and oil industries as much as US ones so hopefully by continuing to support these companies American consumers can bring about a change in US made automobiles.
It looks like with a new year, and Toyota’s success, other car companies are contemplating getting into hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles with the various 2011 concept models that have been revealed.
Chris Paine directed the 2006 film Who killed the Electric Car? about the controversy behind the discontinuation of electric cars. The film talks about the problem of US transportation’s dependency on foreign oil and the issue of new technology development and support in the automobile industry. The movie presented only a few of the matrices of problems the country’s dependency on oil causes. The technology for electric cars has existed for over 100 years but oil engines with internal combustion provided greater speed and so the electric car lost the consumer battle. The oil engine produces carbon dioxide emissions which causes global warming. The other problem with the oil engine is that the emissions create smog and pollute the air causing health problems in humans such as asthma, cancer, and development issues and lesions in the lungs. It was not directly mentioned but the use of oil engines and the dependency has also led to the problem of war and bloodshed for oil control.
The movie gives a brief history of automobiles and the development of electric cars along with some technological education on how electric cars work. It then gets a little more complicated by looking at the legal, technological, economical and controversial story of the electric car. Looking at all the different stakeholders involved in the issue gave the movie great educational value in the complexity of sustainability issues. It shows the viewer that sustainability problems are not simple and cannot be fixed with one new law or technology. It was disappointing however, that most of the movie was based on specific information about California drivers and General Motors’ cars and not various states and companies across the country and automobile industry. The film’s audience of current and future automobile drivers in the US may not be able to relate to the film as well as if there had been more examples in other states. With only California as an example, viewers may not see themselves as contributors to air pollution and global warming the way Californians are, creating a gap in the viewer’s ability to relate to the film. This makes it really difficult for viewers to be convinced of a need for change and then picture the change implemented in their own state.
The film did do a great job showing all sides of the electric car battle in California. The simple issues of an electric car were how to market it generate mass consumption of it. The need was “saving America” but the problem was how far the car can take you. Where can it be charged? The state of California attempted to support a more earth friendly car by creating a zero emissions law and building charging stations across the state. Instead, the attempts initiated resistance from the tax payers, automobile companies and oil industry. Tax payers protested the car because charging stations were being built with their taxes dollars whether or not they drove an electric car. The oil industry began fighting the support of the car because the car posed a threat to taking away a majority of the demand for its products.
The most striking part of the movie was why the car company, GM, turned on its own product. They stopped producing the car and collected all the cars in use and destroyed them. The initial reasoning was because there was no demand but there were waiting lists. People offered to buy all the cars off GM for full price and the company refused the offer. Advertisements were made not promoting the car and the use of it but instead making the car look complicated and not needed. The technology existed to make the cars last longer with better batteries but GM bought control of the batteries and instead of using them in their cars they sold the batteries to an oil company. They said they canceled the electric car because they were going to make a car with a better technology called hydrogen fuel cells but that technology actually used 3 to 4 times more electricity than electric cars. After the electric cars were taken off the road, the Californian government repealed the clear air law.
After seeing how the government, oil industry and car companies overpowered the consumers in this film, you are left feeling completely helpless in fighting for sustainable changes. The one hope the film leaves you with is foreign car companies. Toyota created the hybrid Prius that has become a profitable model for the company in the US. Foreign car companies are not affected by the US government and oil industries as much as US ones so hopefully by continuing to support these companies American consumers can bring about a change in US made automobiles.
It looks like with a new year, and Toyota’s success, other car companies are contemplating getting into hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles with the various 2011 concept models that have been revealed.
To learn more about various sustainable vehicles and technologies being talked about go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40276990/ns/technology_and_science-future_of_energy.
To see the top 10 2011 concepts go to http://www.caranddriver.com/features/10q4/2011_10best_concept_cars-10best_cars.